In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (467 U.S. 229 (1984)), it turned out that almost
half of the property in the entire State of Hawaii was owned by only 72 people! It allowed coalitions of lessees to
petition the State to use eminent domain to take land away from
the landlords and sell it to the lessees. The landlords argued that this was not a public purpose because it
directly took away land from one private person to give it to another private
US Supreme Court found that there was a public social purpose
to the act since it corrected a significant social inequity.
public use purpose of the Takings Clause is coterminous with the scope of the sovereign's police
a pretty broad scope.
case was a continuation of Berman v. Parker (348 U.S. 26 (1954)), which helped to establish that the
government can take property via eminent domain even though
the intent is to resell the property to another private owner. As long as
there is a justifiable public policy purpose.
is only the taking's purpose, not it's mechanics, that matters in
determining the public use."